Talk:GetUp!

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Paulmackayau (talk · contribs) has been paid by GetUp!. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Declaration in edit summary here.

Australia: Politics Mid‑importance

	Australia portal GetUp! is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Soros funded

Looking through the edit history it seems there's been some back and forth between editors removing an assertion in the first section that GetUp was founded with funding by George Soros, then other editors reverting the removal. I've removed the reference to Soros and hope that editors will engage here before reverting it back.

My reasons for removing it are as follows:

The Soros funding claim has been made in the media, but no proof exists and the claim is disputed by the organisation. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to present it as an established fact.
It's not at all clear to me why one (disputed) source of funding is notable, outside of Soros conspiracy theories that have no place influencing Wikipedia editorial decisions. GetUp's funding is frequently subject of media discussion, yet no other funding sources are mentioned in this article. If editors feel that the widespread media and political discussion of GetUp's funding is notable, it might be better to include a Controversy section presenting the claim, but also noting that it is disputed by the organisation.
The references provided (one op-ed by a conservative Senator and another by the director of a conservative think tank) don't verify the claim made. The first one speculates that because GetUp was established (in Australia) in the same month that Soros reportedly expressed the desire (in the US) to establish progressive activist organisations, some kind of link must exist. The second does not mention Soros at all, and I'm not sure why it was included. Dmsynge (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There exists substantial evidence for foreign funding in the accounts. Evidence, not proof, of course. This is politics, not mathematics.
Conspiracy theories are notable if they are put forward by the party currently in Commonwealth government. The idea of political conspiracy is not inherently incorrect.
There are plenty more references that exist. They do not all necessarily need to be cited here.

We are both clearly biased on this issue, therefore, I do not think it is neutral to remove all mention of it. I believe what I have written is sufficiently cautious. --103.46.141.152 (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

585,581+ members ???

Now GetUp! claims on its website 589,261 members. However that number has been static for the last month. With two groups 'GetUp!' and 'Market for Change' lobbying against Harvey Norman, they could only motivate less than 9% of GetUp! members to sign their petition. Is the GetUp! membership-number 'high' or GetUp! membership-activism 'low' ? Speedrailsm (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As usual you're going to need a reference commenting on the percentage of 'members' or whether activism is low etc, complaining about GetUp on their talk page is not going to accomplish anything by itself. Personally I think counting everyone who signs one of their petitions as a member is a rather low tactic; I have signed some GetUp petitions but some of their causes either don't interest me or seem counter-productive so I wouldn't consider myself to be a 'member', but personal feelings about this organisation are irrelevant. Freikorp (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing or independent?

There is no case to be made that GetUp! is not left-wing; it is associated with exclusively left-wing causes, and it is frequently described as such or similar. "Progressive" is a weasel word that is neither clearly defined nor in common use in Australia. For its part, the site calls itself politically "independent", a self-description Wikipedia can not, alone, ascribe the status of fact. I would suggest that "left-wing" is neutral in terms of its connotations and appropriate for use here; "socialist" or similar could be construed as a pejorative term. Joestella 13:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

GetUp is left wing - Even the chaser made a joke at GetUp - 'with their vote for anyone (just not the Liberal Party) campaign' joke. I am going to add to the article that it is seen as a left leaning organisation and that it has been accused of being partisan. Also the first 3 paragraphs seem to be written by GetUp themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.235.101 (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GetUp is left of the Liberal Party, and that isn't necessarily left wing unless you define the Liberal Party (The mass surveillance, paramilitary "BorderForce", use of abuse to get their own way, etc) as center or center-right. In which case you're arguing they're left in the Australian political system and not necessarily left wing on the political spectrum and that is two very different definitions which you aren't noting here or in the article. Keep in mind too that when they're accused of bias it's generally by The Australian or by Liberal-National Party politicians, neither of whom are impartial. Chrissd21 (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign success

My understanding is that mass emails are not taken seriously by politicians. Any strong linkage of GetUp's campaigns to the success or failure of particular pieces of legislation should be backed by sources - statements such as "GetUp campaigns were recognized as playing an important role" need to be substantiated. GetUp never works alone on causes, it generally works in parallel to (though independently of) the labour, environmental and other movements. Joestella 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that statements need to substantiated. To that end, I have removed claims about Senate power, media attention and spam. These had elements of subjectivism.--cj | talk 14:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past campaigns

Oddly, GetUp's website has removed references to at least one past campaign, concerning SnowyHydro's privatisation. It's one of the few in which the site could claim success. Any ideas on how to make the past campaign list more authoritative than GetUp's apparently faulty recollections? Joestella 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms - Effectiveness

Is a blog really notable enough to be referred to on Wikipedia? I think not... I propose deletion. Wiki Townsvillia n 03:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed:

Another criticism of the site concerns its effectiveness. According to the National Forum blog Ambit Gambit, GetUp! will fail to influence voters much as Moveon.org, on which the Australian site is based, did in the United States.
"By giving voice to left-wing opinion they exert a force on centre left parties which pulls them away not just from the centre, but their own working class constituencies," wrote Ambit Gambit, "MoveOn was run by people who thought the reason that they lost the first time was because they weren't singing the song stridently enough."
Further, the blog considers the site to be directed primarily at potential activists, not conservative politicians:

When you look at the site, the ad isn't really directed at the government at all. It's meant to recruit the people sending the URL around who will presumably look at the ad before forwarding. ... They say things like "If only one man controls the media, then we get only one side of the story", "Don't keep putting George Bush's interests in front of Australia's", and "Australia is still a democracy". From our focus group research, I'd expect these phrases to resonate with left of centre voters, not Coalition MPs.^[1]

Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 07:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a wider point here about NPOV to be made (and I agree with the above removal). I think the conception of GetUp as a left-wing organisation is slightly misleading - they take up issues which the "wet"/centrist Liberals would have championed prior to the rise of Howard within the federal Liberal party. Many of the campaigns are in line with comments made in the public arena by Liberal MPs such as Mal Washer, Warren Entsch, Judi Moylan, Jeannie Ferris and Russell Broadbent, and National MP Barnaby Joyce. Many genuinely left wing issues are ignored or not addressed by Getup. Orderinchaos78 07:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ambit Gambit (2005-08-01). "Howard only has to GetUp to get lucky". The National Forum. Retrieved 2007-01-26.

Far left lobby group?

This is rubbish. GetUp! is not a far left lobby group - I am part of GetUp! and I would never have described myself as such. In fact, I would not describe any of the members of my branch as "far left". We conduct meetings and individuals say whatever they like and express their opinions; there is no "party line" like there would be in a political party. So this is just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.52.12 (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, political position is made clear in the intro and body of article. Will remove "far left" description. Recurring dreams (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The centre-left claim is clearly without foundation, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the far left claim has foundation, but is not adequately sourced to remain in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, pro open-floodgate "refugee" policy, uninformed nonsense about the environment , climate change alarmism, anti Hanson claptrap and the usual platitudes sprouted by middle class dropouts & urban trendies. Sounds pretty far left to anyone... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.194.140 (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-partisan"

I have read the comments above and have added "Non-partisan" to the first para to make it clear to uninformed readers that Getup is not a political party. I also agree that it is not "leftist", certainly not "far left", and disagree that "progressive" is not current usage in Australia. I am a very well-informed Australian. Melba1 (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am a teacher, painfully aware that my students use Wikipedia as a reliable, unbiased source of information (!). They are also politically unaware and generally uninformed for the most part, and unable to infer things that most Wiki contributors would. So it is essential to make entries as clear and unambiguous as possible. Also DO NOT ASSUME that your readers' first language is English! Wikipedia is accessed by many millions of people whose first language is not English, and whose ability to interpret English sentences is therefore somewhat limited. Melba1 (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If GetUp! supports left leaning causes, does this then not make GetUp! a left wing organisation? Although it is not sponsored by or affiliated to an individual political organisation, the main thrust of its campaigning has been for a left aligned social and political agenda. Ozdaren (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the light of their decision not to protest about the Malaysian Solution this article could do with some of the commentary from the media about how this doesn't quite gel with their stance on the Pacific Solution.70.189.210.160 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing or independent? Partisan or non-partisan?

There seems to be a lot of contention regarding whether or not GetUp is an politically-neutral organisation.

However as a Green/Labor voter, I think it's naive to think that GetUp is politically-neutral. They are clearly left of the political centre.

If GetUp is politically-neutral, then Fox News in the US is politically-neutral too.

Sources:

2010 Federal Election scorecard clearly focuses on the strengths of the Greens in four policy areas: healthcare, pollution, "fair go" and jobs & infrastructure. https://www.getup.org.au/files/campaigns/gtelectiondayscorecarddemo.jpg

Focusing (Federal) Election 2010 attention on three left-wing social issues: Mental Health, Refugees, Climate Change http://election2010.getup.org.au/

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/getup-open-to-limits-on-donations-20100826-13uay.html "The left-leaning advocacy group GetUp!"

http://www.theage.com.au/national/melbourne-life/surfs-up-for-abbott-in-getup-bid-20100616-yggn.html "The left-wing group" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintslady (talk • contribs) 08:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspiciously-sourced negative content posted by "Brandonfarris" on this page about Getup

Claims about Getup membership could be viewed as misleading, but the tone of that section of the page is clearly and obviously prejudicial in nature. The intention of "Brandonfarris" in posting that section, and seemingly other deliberately negative edits elsewhere throughout the page, is very clear.

And again, the nature of the sources referenced is the most dubious thing about that section. As Nick-D said when he banned "Brandonfarris", the person responsible for posting that section, and the "Labor party front" section, and the "Spam" section, use of dubious negative material from people like Andrew Bolt isn't appropriate.

All of this material is clearly and intentionally negative, and it is part of the overall and transparently obvious agenda pursued by "Brandonfarris" around Wikipedia, as stated by Nick-D a little while ago on this person's talk page.

Andrew Bolt, Quadrant Magazine, and the Murdoch-owned Australian newspaper, are not reliable or neutral sources. Which is part of the reason why we have a media inquiry taking place in Australia now.

Liberal MPs Malcolm Turnbull, Eric Abetz and Andrew Robb are certainly not reliable or neutral sources either. Their rhetoric does not constitute any sort of legitimate evidence.

And the assertions made about donations are false, which can easily been seen by anyone who views the Getup page on their website, which provides ample details of their donations.

Therefore, most of the material in those three sections should not be there. Sam 3982 (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you can hardly say that Getup's own website is an impartial source, now can you? We don't try to find completely neutral sources, that's not how NPOV operates. You should check out WP:NPOV - it's one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Left wing" claim utterly subjective, and not supported by legitimate evidence.

The fact that a Murdoch writer uses those words does not somehow automatically make it so, nor does flagging a boycott of the Australian Food and Grocery Council.

Furthermore, there are clearly many campaigns that Getup are engaged in which are not somehow "exclusively left-wing causes". I can easily go through the list if need be, but people should be doing this sort of research for themselves when discussing this issue, rather than making sweeping claims without any substance to support them.

Last time I checked, Wikipedia is supposed to be documenting in a balanced impartial manner, avoiding advocacy.

All evidence within this Getup page suggests that such standards are not being applied here! Sam 3982 (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Left-leaning" is a reasonable description of the group and its agenda. Stand on the corner between Greens and Labor and Liberal and National Streets and which way is the Getup flag blowing? --Pete (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That post clearly does not constitute evidence either. That is a statement of your opinion. Sam 3982 (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question may be rhetorical, but I'd be interested in your answer. --Pete (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, the problem is that the perception of the political center in Australia is towards the right (a side effect of "The Reds Are Coming!" days when left meant traitor) which means that policies and parties which would otherwise be center right at best (Australian Greens for instance) are instead claimed to be far left. And in the context of Australian politics it's true that the Australian Greens are far left of the Liberal-National Party, but whether that makes the Australian Greens far left depends on where you see the Liberal-National Party. I would argue that they're far right and inherently anti-people and anti-science (extorting states into having priests in schools over trained, professional, and apparently most importantly secular, counselors for instance) making the Greens center left.

Now when it comes to GetUp, it again depends on how you see politics. If you see climate change as a scientific argument then it's not political. If instead you see in climate change the hands of "Big Government" reaching out to strangle upstanding billionaires with an underhanded attempt at resource redistribution and feel that a bunch of heathenous monkey lovers can't possibly be impartial due to their obvious insanity then it's instead a political issue and you see it as far left.

So is GetUp far left? Well that depends. How do you see politics? When Gillard introduced an emissions trading scheme do you call it a tax or an ETS? If you're a Liberal-National voter, if you read The Australian, if you think Bolt is the voice of wisdom crying out in the wilderness for this generation, then it's a tax and it's time to ditch the witch. If instead you see a market option as preferrable to a tax, like Turnbull for instance, then you're still right wing but you aren't going to see the push by GetUp to support Gillard's ETS as a lie and a tax, like this Wikipedia article says.

Does that make sense? Personally I would argue the Liberal-National Party is fairly far right, the Australian Labor Party is left of the L-NP but still well past center (with occasional glorious bursts of a true For-The-People government a la Whitlam) and I would place the Greens as center-right. Still following a capitalist (automatic, cosmic, karmic, immediate, reaction to our actions aka Just World Fallacy) economic system where people aren't innately equal but with some allowances made for science. Public transport for instance, a few good-of-the-country set ups like public education, accepting climate change "because science", etc. And so from my perspective, and from the perspective of others like me, GetUp is not a left wing organisation, much less a collective of extreme left radicals seeking to implement Stalinism.

To use a slightly unrelated issue, are feminists left wing or apolitical? Well if you believe that "this idea that sex is kind of a woman's right to absolutely withhold... need[s] to be moderated, so to speak" as per Abbott then feminism is the sacrilegious corruption of a sacrosanct natural law i.e. that women are lesser beings to men. And in that case anyone talking about feminism would be far left. Or to use a L-NP example, the viewpoint that quotas for female representation in parliament is akin to Stalin's quotas for grain. If you see quotas as a way to get people drowned in a system of systemic prejudice against women used to the idea that women can be in positions of power and can can be in equal numbers, then it's a logical tool. If you see it as Stalinism then it's the kind of far left extremism that caused the Holodmor.

Does all that make sense? Chrissd21 (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Left wing claim is verified by the conversation https://theconversation.com/new-style-lobbying-how-getup-channels-australians-voices-into-politics-60625 as so i have updated the article to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyhegf (talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Conversation that 74tyhegf posted does not actually say anything about "left wing," let alone "verify" it. There are multiple threads in this page's talk section arguing about "left" label and the biggest problem is that this label (as well as others: right, progressive, conservative, liberal, etc) mean different things to different people. It is also subjective relative to your own position (are they left of me?) rather than an absolute! Here are some links that show that no one can agree on what "left wing" even means today [7] [8] [9] [10] including Malcolm Turnbull giving a speech about how the Liberal Party's is "progressive" not "conservative."[11].

More to the point: why is this issue even relevant on a Wikipedia article about GetUp when no one is splitting hairs on categorising other organisations this way? For example, the pages for the Minerals Council[12], Business Council of Australia [13], Greenpeace [14], Australian Conservation Foundation [15] and other lobby groups don't seem to have any arguments on their talk pages about where they fit on the left/right spectrum (moot point: not relevant to the wikipedia pages] let alone multiple threads on this inane categorisation. Whoever is pushing to label GetUp "left-wing" is obviously pushing their own personal opinion/preference, as this is not consistent with other Wikipedia listings. Powertothepeople (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, supporting action about global warming, same sex marriage, and various other positions on which the majority of Australians agree with the Getup position, does not make an organisation "left-wing" or "far-left" either

The tone of a certain unsigned and anonymous poster on this page, and use of offensive innuendos like "climate change alarmism", "anti Hanson claptrap", "pro open-floodgate "refugee" policy", and "platitudes sprouted by middle class dropouts & urban trendies.", rather gives away the fact that it is this poster whose opinions are a long way to the right, not Getup somehow being "far" to the left.

Here are some facts:

A Lowy Institute poll this year showed 81% of Australians support action on global warming.

A Galaxy poll this year showed 62% of Australians support same-sex marriage.

And it's safe to say the vast majority of Australians are also opposed to Pauline Hanson. Her failure to even win a NSW Legislative Council at the last state election there, speaks volumes in this regard.

Sam 3982 (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your viewpoint. Just because a populace supports a measure doesn't mean it isn't left wing, the entirely populace could instead be in a state of mass delusion caused by communist false prophets here to steal our precious bodily fluids and redistribute wealth from those pitiful battlers like Rinehart; after all it's hard work being born into billions. :P And from that perspective it's still left wing. Obviously I disagree but that's the post Cold War world we live in. Chrissd21 (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure of donations by Getup

Getup have provided a page on their website which discloses donations made to the organisation. Thus, I have included this information on the page here.

Their disclosure page is at http://www.getup.org.au/about/disclosure Sam 3982 (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring balance

This Wikipedia GetUp! article does not belong to GetUp! or to its supporters. Considering GetUp!'s high(est?) profile campaigns: Supporting David Hicks, Climate Action and Gay Marriage (BTW, how's all that going?), based on any assessment, these are left-of-centre issues. GetUp! is a left-leaning Australian activist group. Malcolm Turnbull, Eric Abetz, Andrew Robb and Andrew Bolt are notable persons. Stating the opinion of a notable person is always acceptable. GetUp! gives high prominance to 'JOIN THE MOVEMENT OF 588,913 AUSTRALIANS' with the implication all these people have signed up as GetUp! members. GetUp! does not explain this dubious connection.

Leave the GetUp! article as it is at 10:35, 13 December 2011‎. Jacksotherbrother (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably be amongst those half-million "members", as I support some of the issues promoted by GetUp! and I view their stunts as valid consciousness-raising activities. However, GetUp per se is not a huge organisation, and the actual membership would be closer to half a dozen rather than half a million, I suggest. Part of its success is that it makes a lot out of a little and this is an essential part of its character, which should be duly noted by Wikipedia. Given the tightness of the current parliament, GetUp!'s support of the ALP and Greens at the 2010 election probably had a significant influence on the outcome.

It is not a political party where power is exercised by running for and filling elected offices and the level of support may be easily gauged by counting up the votes. Here, the "votes" are those who make a mark on petitions. I would also be wary of claims that there are half a million distinct individuals supporting GetUp! as presumably they merely add together the totals of supporters on each distinct petition and there would be many people making their mark on multiple petitions. Count the same thousand people often enough and you can come up with any number you want.

As a group making political statements, GetUp! attracts both supporters and detractors, often passionate about their positions, and we should be wary of edits that make radical additions or deletions to the article. --Pete (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacksotherbrother "Stating the opinion of a notable person is always acceptable" Hitler was a notable person yet we don't quote Mein Kampf on the Judaism page. Bolt and his ilk aren't of the impartial commentariatl; they're fiercly right aligned, arguably far right, and as such an organisation of GetUp isn't going to be lauded for their services to Australia from those people. Turnbull, Abetz, and Robb, are even worse as they are actually in a political party and can't be trusted to be impartial if their lives depended on it. As noted when Abetz claimed, on national television no less, that abortions lead to breast cancer when he was asked why he was involved with the World Congress of Families; a noted religious right organisation. Now do you see the issue with taking any criticism from Abetz seriously? Or Andrew "Muslims are innately evil and are stealing our precious bodily fluids" Bolt arguing against immigration. It's obviously partisan and hard to justify on an ostensibly neutral site like Wikipedia unless it's noted as partisan, which people then disagree with as everyone sees themself as a centrist. Chrissd21 (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point of our neutral point of view policy. We don't aim for an impartial, centrist, neutral voice; we bring in all well-supported views on a topic, giving them due weight. GetUp is an organisation well on the left of politics, and the opinions of those with a contrary view are worth hearing. Andrew Bolt, for instance. He is hugely influential and certainly not a fringe voice. We don't want this to be a media release for the group, nor do we want it to be an attack page. We aim for balance. --Pete (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Gay Marriage (BTW, how's all that going?)"

Pretty well actually! Overwhelmingly approved in the plebiscite and now legal :) 203.38.29.204 (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring over crowd sizes

Could this be discussed, rather than battling to and fro in the article? There's nothing uncommon about over-estimating the numbers of supporters at a rally and I would be astonished if GetUp! didn't do this, but we can't say that they are giving inflated crowd estimates if we don't have a good source of some Getup! spokesgnome giving out numbers - and a report of a different and way smaller number from the police and/or media. If we don't have good sources, then the claims, accurate and credible though they may be, cannot remain here. --Pete (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

. . . . but we can't say that they are giving inflated crowd estimates if we don't have a good source of some Getup! spokesgnome giving out numbers - and a report of a different and way smaller number from the police and/or media. Pete With great respect, it is not clear what you are saying. (1) Who / what is a spokesgnome? (2) Are you implying that Simon Sheikh is not a good GetUp! source? If Simon Sheikh quotes an estimate of the crowd size, that is Simon Sheikh's estimate of the crowd size. Similarly if the police quote an estimate of the crowd size, that is the police estimate of the crowd size. If we don't have good sources, then the claims, accurate and credible though they may be, cannot remain here. (3) What is your test and who will you permit as a 'good source'? (4) What is the higher standard you require above 'accurate and credible'? Any unilateral talk of, 'cannot remain here' is way too premature. Speedrailsm (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's established procedures are my bedrock here. Reliable sources are what we use. If we are saying GetUp! claims a certain figure and we turn to the source to find that there is no such statement or if there is it is not attributed to a GetUp! spokesperson, then the information is not reliably sourced. As for the "gnome", I use the word in the sense of "wikignome", someone who performs minor but reliable work on the project. It suits my fact to imagine a world where gnomes and mages, warriors and trolls take part in everyday discourse, and Wikipedia is about as close as you get to this world without paying a regular fee to Blizzard. In other words, Mr Speedrail, if you want the article to include certain statements, then do the spadework, find good sources, and don't give people reasons to remove them. --Pete (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While these new references are certainly reliable for wikipedia, I believe the way the information has been put together (regarding 5000 or 10,000 people at the gay marriage rally) violates WP:SYNTH. No reliable source in the article has commented on GetUp! overestimating crowd sources here, this is just one editor saying A and B therefore C. I'd rather discuss it here than edit-war so are there any counter-arguments to me removing the whole sentence? Freikorp (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. We need:

The police or other independent source to claim one crowd size
GetUp! to claim another figure, far larger than the first
A reliable source making the accusation that GetUp! inflates crowd sizes.

I believe that they do - after all, it's common practice in any sort of political movement to say you have a lot more people attending than is actually the case and the only dispute is over how big a lie you can put forward without chortling - but we need to assemble the bits and pieces before we can say it here. --Pete (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting, these new references are certainly reliable for wikipedia, I have presented the rally numbers in NPOV format. Speedrailsm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GetUp!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add info from this article: Turnbull sought help from GetUp

Today there is a very interesting article in The Saturday Paper - labeled "exclusive" - which reveals that Malcolm Turnbull sought help from GetUp (though GetUp turned him down) to lobby Liberal party MPs to vote Turnbull into leadership over Abbott. The article has lots of other stuff of interest in it too, of even more relevance, which is not in the Wikipedia article. To be honest, the Wikipedia article is a bit sparse and there seems to be more content in the "Talk" page then in the Wikipedia Article itself! I hesitate to enter the information myself, as the climate on the Talk page seems a bit toxic and I'm not interested in wading into an edit war. For those braver than myself, here is the article https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/10/28/exclusive-turnbull-sought-getup-help-before-spill/15091092005412?utm_source=tsp_website&utm_campaign=social_desktop_copy_link&utm_medium=social_share Powertothepeople (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of Liberal Party Criticism website

An editor with ip 60.241.207.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added a significant bit of text regarding a website critical of GetUp! apparently run by the Liberal Party. I don't see any coverage of the website. My concern is first that this is undue weight and second the addition says the website claims all sorts of things, but the website mostly attributes those claims to anonymous sources. The editor has also removed text which reported the findings of the Australian Electoral Commission investigation. I am not Australian and have no understanding of the politics, but this looks like an attempt to sow the seeds of doubt on political opponents. Since the IP editor has reverted my change, I will take it here before changing anything again. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GetUp being Anti-Muslim

GetUp is currently in a fight with the Australian Muslim population by trying to pressure the Australian government to stop live sheep trade. This of course is unacceptable to muslims who only eat halal foods. Plenty of citations are available, should be included, as this is a breakaway from GetUp’s original constituency that was quite broad in appeal 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:7834:C7B:7EB8:A501 (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being opposed to the live sheep trade doesn't mean GetUp are "anti-Muslim"

It's entirely possible to slaughter livestock according to hahal requirements in Australia and ship frozen instead. 203.38.29.204 (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Activist/lobbyist

Very bewildered at how describing them as an activist organisation, in addition to the already existing description of a lobbying organisation, could be removed. While we're at, surely they're more of an activist organisation since they mainly target the public rather than politicians. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 16 October 2019

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Replace 'left wing' with 'progressive', since this is what the given reference says: it does not say that Getup is left wing. To justify the use of 'left wing', a reference from a reliable, non-partisan source should be provided and it has no been. My source for this change is the one already given as reference 1: Vromen, Ariadne. "New style lobbying: how GetUp! channels Australians' voices into politics". The Conversation. Retrieved 4 November 2016.Strayan (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariadne Vromen is an academic who studies Australian parties and social movements posting on a reputable newspaper, so the source is fairly reliable. I agree that the source does not say GetUp is 'left wing', instead that it has 'Political leaning: Left'. Leaning could potentially refer to the page "centre-left", rather than the current redirect page "left-wing" which describes socialist and anarchist movements. However, the source never clarifies what it means by leaning. I think it should be removed until there is a source with a less ambiguous definition. Catiline52 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take the term leaning to mean simply that, in the question of whether the organization leans right or left, it's to the left. The left wing would contitute everything within the spectrum of the left side of politics. Centre-left would indicate an organization which splits its affiliation part of the time between the center and the left, which was not indicated in this case by the Vromen source. As far as which article to link the term progressive to, there is the section Progressivism#Contemporary mainstream political conception. Since Vromen uses the term progressive in her article, I would think that link might be the most appropriate one to use (I also think that because she also uses the term Left, that left-wing is also appropriate). Either term works. I do have to say that because Strayan has not disclosed a conflict of interest, their use of the template in this case is not warranted (unless they indicate otherwise). If Strayan receives, or expects to receive, compensation for any contribution they make, they must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation to comply with Wikipedia's terms of use and the policy on paid editing. Please make this disclosure either here on the talk page, or on your own user page if this is the case. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo 01:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Membership?

A million members? Really? Do these supposed members pay annual dues or are recorded in a roll or vote in annual general meetings? Or are they just the total of anyone who has ever signed one of their online petitions over the span of 17 years? --Pete (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of exclamation mark

The use of the exclamation mark after the name is inconsistent in the article and in the sources. I can't find a rule to follow for this - so hoping someone else can, or else just agree on one or the other. I know it's used in the logo and on their website, but it can look a bit odd if you want to use the possessive form. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Ambit Gambit (2005-08-01). "Howard only has to GetUp to get lucky". The National Forum. Retrieved 2007-01-26.

[1]